Feedback Thread: Maps

[Grützi]

I'm currently dabbling in mapmaking a bit. I hear this is the place people know their stuff about Adventures and designing them ... so I'm looking for some feedback.

The Temple of Kyblaros

The Caves under Grünbucht Hill

The Caves under Grünbucht Hill - without Lines

All in all I'm quite happy with these.
Dimensions are aparent, Lightsources and bright light/dim light are marked.

So fire away... I'm pretty sure I missed something

Also if anybody else needs a place to get feedback on some maps, well here it is

 

[squeen]

Very nice!

Can't you see 30'/40' radius with a torch/lantern (PHB, p.102)?
You have 30' diameter.

Also, the dark red S for secret door probably won't print legibly (esp. in B&W).

 

[Grützi]

Thanks.

Lights:
Yeah I mixed it up there a bit on purpose

The Temple is a magical location that fucks up how candles and stuff spread light (among other things).
So every light in the Temple only has their bright illumination area marked on the map. 30' diameter for oil lamp/chandelier, 40' diameter for brazier.

The caves have 20' diameter bright and 40' diameter dim light illumiation for everything for the follwing reason:
The Adventure starts right after some magical shenanigans caused the top of the hill to collapse and suck everyone on it into the caves. Basically a sinkhole openend and swallowed everyone up. "Everyone" in this case are the troops of two feuding nobles, the onlookers and the soldiers of fortune lurking around (and the PCs). So there is not much material to get a fire going, thus they are small and not very bright.

Secret Door Symbol:
Yeah, gotta test it a bit, though changing that symbol is luckily no big deal

 

[squeen]

Secret Door Symbol:
Yeah, gotta test it a bit, though changing that symbol is luckily no big deal

Turn the black S into a white S for contrast?

 

[Grützi]

The Temple of Kyblaros with white Secret Door symbols

I think it's better

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It's clean and concise, very practical for DMing purposes. I like your lighting approach - I think that's very effective without being intrusive.

Your cave map is better without the lines - it's still quite apparent which number belongs to which area, and less cluttered (plus better for direct play on platforms that use maps, like Roll20).

The only thing I'd change is to nix the Dyson hatching. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see that my mind automatically classifies it as "amateur work", simply because of how common it now is in newbie pieces and mass-produced shovelware. It's not so much about the aesthetics of it, but rather the weird mental connection it makes. Other than that one thing, I'd say your maps deserve a stamp of approval.

 

[Grützi]

Thanks DP.

Effective without being intrusive was exactly what I was aiming for with the lights

I was unsure about the lines and how clear it would be which number denotes which room/cavern... It's clear for me because I made the map... not so sure about others. And your point about Roll20 and the like is true too.

I like this style of hatching... though I definetly see your point. It's popping up everywhere these days. I used Dungeonscrawl for these maps and it is the only style of hatching one can enable there.

Some more tests to see what sticks:

Caves - No hatching, all white

Caves - Grey Border, White Background

Caves - All grey

I lean towards white background, grey border.... though all grey looks nice too. All white just seems to bland... I think you need some sort of flourish to differentiate between rooms and nothing/rock.

 

[Beoric]

Your cave map is better without the lines - it's still quite apparent which number belongs to which area, and less cluttered (plus better for direct play on platforms that use maps, like Roll20).

The only thing I'd change is to nix the Dyson hatching. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see that my mind automatically classifies it as "amateur work", simply because of how common it now is in newbie pieces and mass-produced shovelware. It's not so much about the aesthetics of it, but rather the weird mental connection it makes. Other than that one thing, I'd say your maps deserve a stamp of approval.

Disagree in part. The numbers outside the rooms can make it harder to know which number is assigned to which room if there are a number close together. This particular map isn't bad (although you can see how it might be a problem with #7), but later maps in the style could be a problem.

Also disagree on the hatching. It helps distinguish open space from solid rock, and if the alternative is solid colours, it uses too much ink/toner when you print it.

Also, the colour for rubble is too dark for my taste, my brains registers it as some sort of solid obstacle. A different sort of hatching could register it as passible but difficult (and also save toner).

Re: Temple, agree with squeen on the secret doors, I prefer an "S", and generally use a two-tone one (white outlined in black or black outlined in white) so I rarely suffer visibility problems.

Also - and this is less a mapping thing than a keying thing - when you key the temple, keep in mind that sound carries in open spaces. It drives me crazy when chambers have no doors, but the module assumes the monsters inside won't hear combat from a nearby chamber that also has no doors. For example, whoever is in #13 should have a good idea of anything noisy happening in #2 or #8.

 

[Grützi]

@Beoric:
Yeah, I didn't want the numbers in the rooms because a) using the map for Roll20 and b) in some cases here you then wouldn't see much of the room.
I think it works without the lines, though you are right that it can be a problem for a busier or larger map.

Rubble:
How about this?
Caves - Hatching, light rubble texture

Bit of Context here:
There was a battle between two feuding nobles and their retainers on the hilltop and through some magic shenanigans the hilltop collapsed and sucked them all into the caves below. Basically like a sinkhole opened up,sucked everything in and then sealed them shut inside the caves.
So the "rubble" in this map is basically just slopes of broken stones, earth and dead bodies.
I mainly put it there as a help for the DM... because I plan to include a "I search the rubble"-table in this and for that the DM should know if there is rubble present

Regarding the secret door symbols in the temple... well I gotta play around with that a bit

I'm a big proponent of the "things have to make fucking sense even in a fantasy world"-school of thinking, so I'll always try to keep such stuff in mind (enemies hearing fighting, patrol routes, what can happen when and such stuff)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Disagree in part. The numbers outside the rooms can make it harder to know which number is assigned to which room if there are a number close together. This particular map isn't bad (although you can see how it might be a problem with #7), but later maps in the style could be a problem.

Also disagree on the hatching. It helps distinguish open space from solid rock, and if the alternative is solid colours, it uses too much ink/toner when you print it.

Always the contrarian, eh?

To your first point: the general approach to this is to do a DM-only map with everything, then a play-friendly map (print/roll20-compatible, hiding secret doors and room numbers). My point though was that the version with lines was inferior to the version without lines, and to reassure Grutzi that his map numbers were still attributable. That being said, if he chooses to keep the numbers outside the rooms, it would be beneficial to reduce the size of the room numbers a bit so they don't spill out over other areas, which I think would mitigate the problem you address.

To the second point: I have no problem with hatching - obviously you need something to put into the empty areas for clarity sake. My objection is to Dyson hatching, and how damn pervasive it is amongst "rookie designer" products.

Of the newer iterations, I think the all-grey one is the clearest of the group, but the grey & white one is nicer looking.

I took a stab at using a more stone-y outline, to give you an example of a simple way to jazz it up a bit, in case you wanted textural hatching that wasn't Dyson-ish. You've honestly got a lot of options. EDIT: was a quick job to demonstrate... I know I missed some of the inner room stone and covered over some room numbers.

 

[Beoric]

I took a stab at using a more stone-y outline, to give you an example of a simple way to jazz it up a bit, in case you wanted textural hatching that wasn't Dyson-ish. You've honestly got a lot of options. EDIT: was a quick job to demonstrate... I know I missed some of the inner room stone and covered over some room numbers.

I like that for a screen map, but a cheap inkjet print would still come out pruny. Dyson's solution may be ubiquitous, but that is partly because it works. I actually resisted it for some time but have come around to it.

 

[squeen]

I don't think the rubble evokes rubble (despite the key). Looks like an extra-solid wall....maybe one you can't passwall/dig through.

Also, the number are far bigger than they need to be for normal vision. The hex-box just enlarges them.

 

[EOTB]

I like them, they're very good. The only thing I would change for my own maps, since a splash of color isn't verboten due to lights, is to make the water a light blue so it pops.

 

[Grützi]

Thanks for all the ideas and feedback

Here is the current version of the Caves map:

Caves - current

Hatching is on, rubble is lighter and has a slightly coarse texture, room numbers rearranged a bit and a bit smaller and the water pops in light blue.

I really like it that way.

Regarding Roll20 maps:

This map above is for the DM, I'll probably include a "blank map" without keyes, legend and stuff.
Then one can use the "blank" map for Roll20... or Igo back and make a pimped up version with textures for walls and ground and stuff.

 

[Beoric]

I like that quite a bit better, although with the addition of colour to the water you can make the rubble even lighter.

 

[squeen]

Getting there. I still don't "see" the rubble texture unless I squint. Can you give it more contrast?

Still, no one is going to complain if they are given a map like this.

The instant I saw Dungeonscrawl I thought "This is going to be the new Dyson"---it will be everywhere soon. Quality vs. effort puts it over the top,

I guess I am still a bit biased towards hand-drawn maps for the character they add---but they are way more work.

 

[Grützi]

Caves - new rubble

@squeen: like that?

I'm happy with it as is, any changes are more for playing around and trying different things now

 

[squeen]

I do like that better**. Again, that's a solid map --- you will get no complaints.

(**but would argue you don't need the solid lines defining the outer edges of the rubble anymore.)

 

[squeen]

Also, here's why you shouldn't listen to me. My latest hand-drawn "proto" map.



Looks like a train wreck compared t yours!! ;P

 

[The1True]

Looks like a train wreck

It's actually not bad. You've gotta stop smudging everything though. That gets beaten out of us in first year art school...